3.5 Eberron vs 4e Eberron map

[AntiTrust]

I'm going to print out a table sized blown up map of the world in Eberron. If you were a player new or not to Eberron which map would you prefer? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

This is the 3.5 one.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/eb_map/Eberron_Map_32x20.jpg

This is the 4e one.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090819121533/eberron/images/f/f4/D%26D_-_4th_Edition_-_Eberron_Map_Khorvaire.jpg

[Yora]

I would go with the 3.5e map. Especially when you print it out (probably black and white), the clearer lines will be much more visible. The 4th Ed. map will probably be rather fuzzy or muddy.
Also, mapmakers would make a map like the old one. The new looks more like a satelite image. If you would buy a map in a store in Eberron, it would look like the 3.5e map.

[AntiTrust]

I would go with the 3.5e map. Especially when you print it out (probably black and white), the clearer lines will be much more visible. The 4th Ed. map will probably be rather fuzzy or muddy.
Also, mapmakers would make a map like the old one. The new looks more like a satelite image. If you would buy a map in a store in Eberron, it would look like the 3.5e map.

I'll actually be shelling out cash for a colored version. Thank you for reminding me to mention that.

[Yora]

Still, the 4th Ed. map would only be a gaming device. The 3.5e map could also work as a prop for the map one of the characters is actually carrying.

[Reverent-One]

Given that the information looks to be largely the same between the same, either one works, just depends on which visual aesthetic you perfer.

[KillingAScarab]

My introduction to Eberron, other than a vague awareness of warforged and artificers, was the 4th ed. books. I personally appreciate how the Mournland sticks out like a scar on the continent on the 4th ed. map, and looks unaturally well-defined. There's no doubt it was a not a natural disaster. It also details things a bit further north than the 3.5 map. So, if you're ever going to have arcitc adventures, they're already on that map, along with a few more things in the Demon Wastes.

If you take a look at the compass rose on each map, though, the 3.5 map has the axes perfectly aligned, while the 4th ed map is rotated a little.

[Palanan]

There are good points in favor of both maps, but I'd go with the 3.5 version, for the reasons mentioned above. It's not quite a style I personally enjoy, but it does look something like a 19th-century map, with a definite mood and feel.

The fourth edition map looks superficially like a satellite map, but it's been slapped together on the cheap with some very chintzy textures. The mountains are much too polygonal and simplistic, and the generic forest texture is jarring to the eye. The hand-drawn quality of the 3.5 map has none of these issues--and as Yora points out, it would double nicely as a prop for one of the characters, or maybe an NPC cartographer.


Originally Posted by KillingAScarab
If you take a look at the compass rose on each map, though, the 3.5 map has the axes perfectly aligned, while the 4th ed map is rotated a little.

Very good catch there, got right by me.

For my part--and I've never looked closely at Eberron, so this may be old news--I couldn't help but notice "Basura Swamp" in the northeast of Q'barra. Basura means "trash" in Spanish, and I don't know if this was an odd coincidence or someone's little joke. I love swamps and wetlands of every kind, so the latter would make me a little sad.

[Invader]

I'm currently running a 3.5 campaign and I'm using the 4th ed. map and it looks beautiful. I got it blown up to about 3ft by 4ft using this website http://www.blockposters.com/ Its free, easy, and there's no wash out or blurriness when it gets enlarged. I'd highly recommend giving it a try.

[KillingAScarab]

Very good catch there, got right by me.I didn't mean to make it seem like a mistake. My impression is that it shows that the way the continent is easiest to display is not as convenient as matching the cardinal directions. A bit more verisimilitude, perhaps. However, if your players tell you "we go straight North" and don't notice that, they might end up somewhere they did not intend, I suppose.

[Invader]

I would go with the 3.5e map. Especially when you print (probably black and white), the clearer lines will be much more visible. The 4th Ed. map will probably be rather fuzzy or muddy.
Also, mapmakers would make a map like the old one. The new looks more like a satelite image. If you would buy a map in a store in Eberron, it would look like the 3.5e map.

Actually neither of these is necessarily true. The level of detail in some antique maps is pretty astounding.

[Waddacku]

I like how the 4e map names more things. It's got all the little woods labeled, for one thing.